Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:28:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 10:08:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Indeed, so we need to strip those GPLed firmwares ?
>
> I'm not going to repeat myself on that again.
>
> > > I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include this
> > Anthony, this is a strong breach of thrust. When you asked me to delay my
> > original call for vote, it was to achieve a consensual proposal, [...]
>
> > I don't think so, it is my understanding that Manoj's amendment has not
> > reached enough seconds for the vote to go on.
>
> Frederik's proposal as amended by Manoj has been seconded by:
>
> Steve Langasek <20060927222506.GE4738@mauritius.dodds.net>
> Bill Allombert <20060927202918.GE19012@seventeen>
> Bastian Blank <20060927203044.GA19673@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org>
> Frank Kuster <864pusie01.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
> MJ Ray <451b7e4d.bUn+UlcpS2SzP0kB%mjr@phonecoop.coop>
> Anibal Monsalve Salazar <20060928234427.GA7578@debianrules.debiancolombia.org>
> Daniel Ruoso <1159523955.6103.9.camel@localhost>
>
> Depending on whether Manoj or Frederik is considered the proposer,
> Frederik might also count as a second, but only five are needed, and
> there are seven above.
>
> > 5. We further note that some of these firmware do not have proper license,
>
> Again, no, Debian is not distributing anything we're not confident we
Ah, no, i forgot to change this to what Manoj suggested this morning :
We further note that some of these firmware do not have individual license,
and thus implicitly fall under the the generic linux kernel GPL license.
We then continue by saying that we will distribute them as part of etch, and
investigate afterward, in the meanwhile urge the vendors to do the right thing ?
> have a valid license to distribute. And no, "confident" doesn't mean
> "certain beyond all possible doubt" -- it means we make a good faith
So, given the word modification above, is that not plainly what we say ?
> attempt to comply with the stated wishes of the rights holders.
we are not making a good faith attempt, we are willingly closing our eyes over
the issue, but i understand why you would like not to say that, which is why i
changed the clause 5. as it is, together with Frederik, and why we dropped
clause 6.
Sure, there was a typo which i now fixed, but you didn't even consider the
whole proposal, which is rather disapointing.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: